On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't >> know and I'm not going to pretend that I do. >> > > > I don't see how the big bang could make 2+2=4. Are you saying that in > another big bang, 2+2=5? >
No, but I am saying that maybe we should take it seriously when people say that mathematics is a language, a language that is extremely well suited for describing certain things and for telling certain kinds of stories. A language can tell the story of the first 3 minutes of the Big Bang, or the story of the construction of the Hoover Dam, or the story of the construction of Hogwarts. One of these 3 things is not like the others because we say it is not real, by that we mean it is not in the physical universe; and the way we have for determining which stories in any language tells are real is by experiment. So if mathematics really is just a language, the most logical one conceivable but a language nevertheless, then it's a human invention and physics is more fundamental than mathematics and the Big Bang didn't need mathematics or any other language but mathematics needed the Big Bang. Please note I'm not saying any of this is true, I'm just saying it might be. > If one is going to darw any conclusions, I'd say it's that infprmation is > more *fundamental* than we have previously assumed. > That at least we can agree on. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
